Residents and county officials clash after termination of county engineer; board schedules special meeting to respond to grievance

Pottawattamie County residents and officials raised sharp criticism of the Board of Supervisors after the board declined to reinstate County Engineer John Rasmussen, prompting calls for a special meeting and alarm from multiple speakers about possible lost grant funding.

At a regular board meeting, speakers in public comment described Rasmussen as a longtime, effective official and said his removal appeared abrupt and undocumented. “I cannot understand how this board voted to terminate our county engineer,” said Shawna Anderson, who identified herself as a resident and regular meeting attendee. Anderson told the board she had previously emailed Rasmussen about poor private-contractor work on a county road, and said Rasmussen intervened and improved the work.

Anderson and other speakers said the termination could cost the county grant opportunities. “The lack of communication as a board and the lack of being prepared to continue what was going on in the roads department resulted in our county losing over $7,000,000 in grants immediately,” Anderson said. Ray Wagner, another resident, said Rasmussen had been “very competent” and that the board’s action humiliated a public servant and risked litigation and greater expense to taxpayers.

The board acknowledged that it had not completed a formal response to a grievance arising from the termination. County attorneys were given seven days to prepare a response, board members said, and the board indicated it would hold a special meeting on Thursday to finalize its action so the attorney can meet the deadline. The board did not complete a formal vote on a corrective action at the meeting.

Nut graf: The dispute centers on an administrative decision already made by the board to not reinstate the county engineer; public commenters and some supervisors said the process lacked documented performance issues and could carry financial and legal consequences for the county. The board signaled it will meet again on an expedited schedule to give the county attorney time to respond to the grievance.

Board members and staff reiterated that a formal grievance process is underway and that next steps will be set by legal counsel; the meeting did not produce a final resolution. Public commentators urged the board to allow the incumbent contract to run its course rather than terminating the engineer, and several said they fear further costs and instability for county infrastructure planning.

Ending: The board set a special meeting window to complete its deliberations and to allow county counsel to prepare required materials; no final public action on the grievance was recorded at the meeting.